Editors with agendas should probably take more note, than those who write the stories. It is inevitably the editors who slant items to their own political agenda, most often by omission.

There are some who do get it right. They are those with the fortitude to often be controversial, and don’t hesitate to include all sides of the topic. This is then reflected in the ratings.

The prime example here is Andrew Bolt, the bane of the left. A former media representative for former Labor leader Kim Beazley, now an opinion writer for News Limited and his own show on Channel 10.

Despite a lot of vitriol, mostly from the ‘Left’, Bolt’s ratings continue to be way above expectations. By being sometimes controversial, both sides of the political spectrum comment regularly on his site, and an interesting dialogue takes place. Love him or hate him, it’s always worth a look.

Then you look at items from Fairfax, unapologetic about their content which always omits the full story, or distorts it so much that items have to occasionally disappear even. This particularly happens when anything to do with climate comes up. They just cannot bear that there is an opposing view, with a final resort to name-calling instead.

They even sponsor the Earth Hour, a purely political piece of nonsense. There, see, even I can make what seems to them a controversial statement. And I can back it up with facts and figures, but it is still controversial.

The end result is, that Bolt’s blog reader numbers exceed all the Fairfax publications put together. His viewers on The Bolt Report are higher than the long time program The Insiders on ABC, where he was a regular guest, despite not being available in many parts of Australia.

One of his counterparts, David Marr, is mostly ignored for his partisan efforts in the media. Advertisers want to see numbers, not who is saying what, when and how.

There are many more examples but readers can make their own decisions.

Tim Blair – Tuesday, February 07, 12 (05:15 am)

Leftoids typically imagine that, were they not held back by profound ethical concerns, enormous commercial success would surely be theirs. Because it’s just that easy. Here’s the Guardian‘s Charlie Brooker, dismissing the Daily Mail:

The print edition of the paper is edited by Paul Dacre, who is regularly praised by media types for knowing what his customers want, and then selling it to them. This is an extraordinary skill that puts him on the same rarefied level as, say, anyone who works in a shoe shop. Or a bike shop. Or any kind of shop. Or in any absolutely any kind of business whatsoever. Whatever you think about Dacre’s politics, you can’t deny he’s got a job to do, and he does it. Like a peg. Or a ladle. Or even a knee. Dacre is perhaps Britain’s foremost knee.

According to December audit figures, the Daily Mail‘s circulation stands at 1,994,908. The Guardian is on just 230,108 – a 13 per cent decline over the previous year. Got any shoes to sell, Charlie?

Tim Blair – Monday, February 06, 12 (06:28 am)

The Global Mail launches today, funded by $15 million in ad-free donations and featuring a raft of ex-Fairfax and ABC identities, plus a few from Who Weekly and the old Bulletin. Take a look.

UPDATE. “This is revolutionary stuff,” writes the Bunyip. “Brave, courageous, daring to go where only the Phage, Silly, The Conversation, SBS, The Drum, Q & A, Lateline, New Matilda, Lavatorius Pronto, Crikey and poor Margo have gone before.” Do follow that link for a Bunyipian lesson on information gathering – a lesson that not even $15 million could buy.

Total audience for yesterday’s Bolt Report and encore (excluding country viewers): 257,000

Total audience for yesterday’s Insiders (including on ABC24): 192,000.

I know we were beating Insiders for total viewers by the end of last year, too, (when the golf didn’t replace the encore) but this is a great start to the year – and I thank you very much for your interest.